On Wednesday 3 cis women gave evidence to the @Commonswomequ select committee on #GRA reform. These panellists spent the majority of their allocated time arguing that proposed reform has the potential to harm cis women due to the presence of trans women in ‘women’s’ spaces

Yet anyone who has knowledge about the issues at stake knows that changes proposed to the GRA would have absolutely no impact here. There is no connection as the Equality Act, by recognising trans women as women, ensures their right to women’s spaces such as toilets
The arguments presented at @Commonswomequ by these panellists were thus completely irrelevant- they might as well have been arguing that changes to the GRA would lead to a rise in the price of bread - and should have been told so by the committee Chair.
Moreover, they presented no evidence in support of their (irrelevant) claims. When pushed, one study from Sweden was cited. Anyone who knows this study, however, knows that it does not do what was claimed - indeed the author has explicitly asked for it not to be used in this way.
Their evidence therefore is based on the views of supporters of trans hostile organisations such as WPUK who all 3 panellists have some involvement with. In light of this, I also did some quick and dirty research.
Over a period of 24 hrs I asked cis women to speak out if they were *not* concerned by the continued presence of trans women in spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. Around 1,000 women responded and many added supplementary text such as...
‘Trans women have always been in these spaces’. ‘How does anyone know who is a trans woman or a cis woman in a public facility?’ ‘The question is irrelevant to GRA reform’. And many, many variations of ‘of course not’ and ‘trans women are women’
Obviously I am not claiming that these responses are neutral. They are likely to be from women invested in the debate - as are the claims of the panellists. My point is though to show that huge numbers of women are more than happy to continue to share all spaces with *all* women.
Further, the vast majority of women are not invested in these debates simply because they do not care. Indeed, what the last 24 hrs has shown is that it is the gender policing politics and genital obsession of GC women that are a cause of concern for many cis women.
The claims of the 3 cis women panel members at the @Commonswomequ are therefore simply ideological arguments with no evidence base at all. These women do not represent women in the UK. Their views are entirely contestable. This position should have no impact on law and policy.
It’s important to also add that there were numerous responses from women who have experienced sexual assault and violence (from men). Many of these women said that they were deeply upset and offended that their experiences were being weaponised by GC feminists.

More from Society

The Nashville Operation - A Battle in the War

A thread exploring the Nashville bombing in the context of the 2020 Digital War (via SolarWinds) against the United States perpetrated by our enemies, likely China, Iran and/or Russia.


SolarWinds Hack

A digital "Pearl Harbor" moment for the United States, whoever was responsible had access to the keys to the kingdom for months during 2020, including sensitive military infrastructure. This is war!

SunGard + SolarWinds

SolarWinds software company is owned by same company that owns SunGard, which essentially provides data center services. A secure place to host internet servers with redundant power and "big pipe" data connections.

https://t.co/U3P3SrrkM1


SunGard Data Center

In Nashville, around the corner from their "big pipe" connection, AT&T. Like any data center, highly secure. Only authorized personnel can enter, and even fewer can access the actual server rooms. Backup generators are available in case of power failure.


If the SunGard hardware was being used to "host" critical command and control software related to SolarWinds, the US powers would be very interested in gaining special access keys that are stored on the hard-drives of specific servers.
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
We finally have the U.S. Citizenship Act Bill Text! I'm going to go through some portions of the bill right now and highlight some of the major changes and improvements that it would make to our immigration system.

Thread:


First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.

Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."

Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."


Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.

Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.


So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:

- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)


After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.

However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.

You May Also Like